| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, there goes any idea of a strength unchained rogue, it'd be dumb not to go dex to damage, and if you're that hurt about adding 1.5 stat mod get proficiency with with an elven curve blade. There should've been some other option IMO. I mean I'm not real hurt over this as I'm a dex junkie after all, but that doesn't make this not a decent idea as other's aren't.
I was surprised that knife thrower wasn't a good fit.
But who knows, maybe we'll get unchained archetypes some day...
Dexterity to Damage is an illusion of being better than Strength. I've ran the numbers before.
Going a Strength-based Slayer is much more effective than a Dexterity-based Rogue as far as Martial prowess is concerned, and it doesn't require stupid, effectively wasted investments to make work. AC isn't much of an issue either, because the only real difference between using standard Armor and using lighter armor with a high Dexterity Bonus is specializing between sub-ACs. Lastly, the decrease of ~1 Skill Point/level is a negligible cost to pay for the amount of increased Martial versatility you come to possess as a Slayer.
I mean, the only things that Dexterity wins out is Skill modifiers (which for some, are negligible after a certain point), Reflex Saves (which may not really be all that powerful, though it is a deciding factor for determining Evasion's usefulness), and Touch AC (which won't matter at the endgame anyway). Its damage scaling is garbage in comparison to Strength. It can't really carry any weight versus Strength. It requires more feats to pull off versus Strength builds. It also requires a delay of early character effectiveness (since you need time and levels for class features and feats); that Strength guy is good to go at level 1, whereas you have to wait until level 3, or higher, before you come online.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: There's not much of an up-side for going Dexterity. It requires extra investment, and the pay-off isn't that great. By the numbers, unless you're getting Dexterity to damage for Free, by 1st level, without having to pay a damn dime in feats, class features, etc. It's not worth going Dexterity-based as a Martial benefit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dexterity to Damage is an illusion of being better than Strength. I've ran the numbers before.
Going a Strength-based Slayer is much more effective than a Dexterity-based Rogue as far as Martial prowess is concerned, and it doesn't require stupid, effectively wasted investments to make work. AC isn't much of an issue either, because the only real difference between using standard Armor and using lighter armor with a high Dexterity Bonus is specializing between sub-ACs. Lastly, the decrease of ~1 Skill Point/level is a negligible cost to pay for the amount of increased Martial versatility you come to possess as a Slayer.
I mean, the only things that Dexterity wins out is Skill modifiers (which for some, are negligible after a certain point), Reflex Saves (which may not really be all that powerful, though it is a deciding factor for determining Evasion's usefulness), and Touch AC (which won't matter at the endgame anyway). Its damage scaling is garbage in comparison to Strength. It can't really carry any weight versus Strength. It requires more feats to pull off versus Strength builds. It also requires a delay of early character effectiveness (since you need time and levels for class features and feats); that Strength guy is good to go at level 1, whereas you have to wait until level 3, or higher, before you come online.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: There's not much of an up-side for going Dexterity. It requires extra investment, and the pay-off isn't that great. By the numbers, unless you're getting Dexterity to damage for Free, by 1st level, without having to pay a damn dime in feats, class features, etc. It's not worth going Dexterity-based as a Martial benefit.
While true in most cases, this is irrelevant to the thread at hand since ALL of those points are moot when it comes to the Unchained Rogue. It gets it for free (no Feats required) and actually is multiplied by 1.5 when using a 2H Finesse weapon (of which there are 2 or 3 now, and they're quite good), Rogues don't get better armors anyway, and carry weight is largely inconsequential.
The only upside a URogue has by going Str is it's better at levels 1 and 2. Which is the complaint. That a URogue (specifically that class, not as compared to other classes or anything else) is pretty much REQUIRED to be Dex based or forfeit a whole class feature and a good bit of effectiveness overall.
@ My Self: That's a really incorrect statement. Dexterity is forcibly the most important statistic to a Rogue, just like how Intelligence is forcibly the most important statistic to a Wizard. In addition, there are other, more intelligent ways to qualify for feats such as TWF and Archery. Artful Dodge is perhaps one way, though is really restricted to the likes of Magi (and if they're cookie cutters, they won't need it anyway). Ranger Style Feats is another, and if you need access to those to pull off TWF, then you might as well become a Slayer.
@ Rynjin: I was actually stating that in agreement with the OP's complaint. His complaint is being straight-jacketed into a single statistic when a Rogue can (and should) fit more than one.
I sympathized with his plight, although on a separate level; he dislikes the straight jacket of options, point buys, et. al. I dislike the factor that said straight jacket is, in fact, a misdirection of optimization and purpose, and is perhaps something that he too, might agree with. But the problem with that is the factor that Dexterity is a solid solution on the face, but an illusion of one at its core.
I'm not opposed to the Dexterity statistic itself. I'm opposed to how it's supposed to be pulled off in comparison to the game's default, and how in fact, the UCRogue doesn't really do anything to help alleviate that more than what the current options already allow.
The ultimate topic here is "Why is the UCRogue heavily restricted to Dexterity-based options? Why doesn't he have XYZ as viable options too?" The only really valid answers are that "Players wanted this," and "This is one manner that the devs wished to make Dexterity to Damage a reality." Because we've seen what they've done with other examples to make them a reality: export them to splatbooks or nerf them into extremely-niche options. That being said, this solution here is effectively no different than what they've already done in the past, and that's because they're afraid of allowing another option due to its power (which has been proven time and again that it's merely an illusion of power).
After all, this sort of topic isn't much different to wonder why, say, a Sorcerer isn't also Intelligence-based casting instead of Charisma, and we all know the answer behind that sort of decision: Design principles. And it's difficult to argue design principles without taking into consideration the mechanical impact behind implementing a rule or class feature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After all, this sort of topic isn't much different to wonder why, say, a Sorcerer isn't also Intelligence-based casting instead of Charisma, and we all know the answer behind that sort of decision: Design principles. And it's difficult to argue design principles without taking into consideration the mechanical impact behind implementing a rule or class feature.
After all, this sort of topic isn't much different to wonder why, say, a Sorcerer isn't also Intelligence-based casting instead of Charisma, and we all know the answer behind that sort of decision: Design principles. And it's difficult to argue design principles without taking into consideration the mechanical impact behind implementing a rule or class feature.That is a really bad example.
It's certainly not the only one.
But sitting there and citing a single "archetype" from a single class as a solution to what can be viewed as a glaring design problem is promoting cookie cutter subjects, which is obviously something the OP isn't fond of in regards to the UCRogue. See also, Invulnerable Rager Barbarians, Dervish Dance Magi, and so on.
I'd say it's the perfect solution, since the cited "design problem" was merely a lack of alternate options (which is what an archetype would be).
An archetype that traded Finesse Training for something else would fix that right up.
Or they could have rolled Finesse Training into the Finesse Rogue talent and given the rogue an extra rogue talent at level 1. It wouldn't have a negative impact to current builds that rely on Finesse Training, but it would mean that a hypothetical muscly rogue wouldn't have dead class features.
|
Yes but it does give the muscle Bound rogue a better advantage because they don't have to take that option.
All classes include something you can do without for the most part. This is an example of it. At best it makes the Dex build just as viable as strength. For those that use strength they don't need the option and will do great with damage.
This is incorrect, most classes do not have abilities you blatantly ignore as a baseline. Those decisions tend to be in variable powers you choose but not in the normal loadout, especially one that gives free feats or engenders a fighting style.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or they could have rolled Finesse Training into the Finesse Rogue talent and given the rogue an extra rogue talent at level 1. It wouldn't have a negative impact to current builds that rely on Finesse Training, but it would mean that a hypothetical muscly rogue wouldn't have dead class features.
I fear that they decided to give it at level 3 because of cheese multiclassing.
A lot of classes buiilds (magus, ranger, slayer, brawler, monk...) will "sacrifice" one level progression to take a single rogue level to import the dex to damage ability.
Just take a look at the vast quantity of dawnflower scimitar wielder builds that exist.
It's not "cheese". Using something as intended is not "cheese".
If Paizo hadn't decided to make every route to Dex to damage convoluted and requiring the player to bend over backwards to get it you'd see far less of those types of multiclassing, because then it wouldn't be necessary for anyone who wants to be Dex based.
|
For those people who don't know what the big deal is, finesse training is worth about 2 feats (I think?). Now the chained rogue wouldn't get those feats, but you had the option to take them anyway as feats or as rogue talents. You could also just use your feats for something like power attack instead.
Now with finesse training, you get them automatically, even if you want to build a strength rogue. This means that a strength build would be about 2 feats behind a dex rogue.
You know, beside that dex bonus to armor class...
And ranged attack rolls...
And reflex saves...
And stealth...
So the point is that the unchained rogue is a bit more SAD. Is that a bad thing? Only for people who want to play an enforcer type of character. I'm sure there are other options though. It just sucks that the gap between a strength rogue and a dex rogue got a little bit bigger.
Ofcourse, not all feats are made equal, so maybe there is still a way a strength rogue could come out on top?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My propossed solution would be making DEX to apply to hit and damage for all fines se weapon, for free, without any other feat required, regardless of class.
For those who are thinking now "but... That would mean STR becomes useless, and a dump stat". Well, use other options then to make str (and CHA, for that matter) more useful, and needed, or punish dumping somehow. There is a lot of space design for that.
Devs are against DEX to damage because STR, as is, gives nothing but hit and damage, while DEX gives AC, Initiative, Saves, and several importsnt skills like Stealth. I don't think that's a problem with DEX. It's a problem with STR.
Probably is a change too deep to affect Cord. But we are talking about Unchained there, which is the perfect spot to prsctice this mind of options.
Possible solutions could be to add STR and CON to fortitude saves, or add 1/2 STR to natural armor, or make more effects that can only be saved with a STR check (like entangle), or make some damage feats STR only, or simply make Heavy Armors way more useful (they suck now), so investing in STR, and a full plate, doesn't make you have LESS Armor than a light Armor build PLUS less movements and a huge, horrible penalty to being an adventurer (climbing, balancing, etc).
Same goes with CHA. People dump it because it's useless beyond 2-3 skills. Make a rule that says "you can only have 3+CHA bonus Magic items" and sudenly it becomes way more important. Or make it the default Stats for will saves, as it should. Or any other relevant effect that males having a -2 there hurt. Nobody dumps CON.
Those are ideas from the top oh my head, and I'm aware they aren't balanced yet and would need to rebalance some things in the rules.
TL:DR, the problem with DEX to damage for free is not that DEX is toó powerful. It's that STR sucks for every thing but damage
It seems they could have easily fixed that by making it part of the rogues FCB to start with it at level 1 and made any multiclass wait until their 3rd rogue level...Or they could have rolled Finesse Training into the Finesse Rogue talent and given the rogue an extra rogue talent at level 1. It wouldn't have a negative impact to current builds that rely on Finesse Training, but it would mean that a hypothetical muscly rogue wouldn't have dead class features.I fear that they decided to give it at level 3 because of cheese multiclassing.
A lot of classes buiilds (magus, ranger, slayer, brawler, monk...) will "sacrifice" one level progression to take a single rogue level to import the dex to damage ability.
Just take a look at the vast quantity of dawnflower scimitar wielder builds that exist.
People would make first level rogué, and THEN, once they have used it for a while level, mukticlass into the other class. That doesn't solve anything
For those people who don't know what the big deal is, finesse training is worth about 2 feats (I think?). Now the chained rogue wouldn't get those feats, but you had the option to take them anyway as feats or as rogue talents. You could also just use your feats for something like power attack instead.
Now with finesse training, you get them automatically, even if you want to build a strength rogue. This means that a strength build would be about 2 feats behind a dex rogue.
No. It means the the strength build rogue wouldn't use one of the UC rogue's class features. It happens, especially when working against the assumptions of a class.
If we accept that Str builds are inherently better, then the strength rogue has an advantage for every level. At third level the UC rogue only gets Dex to damage with a single weapon. They have to wait until 11th level to get Dex to damage with another weapon, and 19th level for a third. They get Strength to damage with every weapon.
It comes down to UC rogue is not the best solution to every character concept. You need to look at the mechanics of the class, not just the fluff, to determine if it is the right choice to make for a particular character. They have made the default high-Dex build a little better, but that doesn't mean every stealthy character should take the rogue class.
There already is a 3PP archetype for the Str-focused unchained rogue: the bruiser in Unchained Cunning. In place of the finesse training tree, a bruiser gets a bonus to Fort saves at 1st level and picks from a list of bonus combat feats at 3rd, 11th, and 19th levels.
The writer, Alexander Augunas, is already a Paizo freelancer, so maybe we'll see an official Paizo-approved Str-focused archetype in a future product?
Or they could have rolled Finesse Training into the Finesse Rogue talent and given the rogue an extra rogue talent at level 1. It wouldn't have a negative impact to current builds that rely on Finesse Training, but it would mean that a hypothetical muscly rogue wouldn't have dead class features.I fear that they decided to give it at level 3 because of cheese multiclassing.
A lot of classes buiilds (magus, ranger, slayer, brawler, monk...) will "sacrifice" one level progression to take a single rogue level to import the dex to damage ability.
Just take a look at the vast quantity of dawnflower scimitar wielder builds that exist.
Clerics or Oracles multiclassing 2 levels into Paladin is about as much "cheese" as it is people multiclassing 1-3 levels into Rogue. In which case, if you want to play it that way, then why don't we eliminate all class features until 5th level, where players have to spend 5 levels being a bland, featureless piece of paper in order to get stuff. Some campaigns are like that, and can be fun if done right. But chances are, they won't be, and multiclassing is already difficult to justify as it is without pulling off some dipping "shenanigans".
I already told you how the numbers game worked in comparison. Dexterity to AC only wins out in regards to Touch AC V.S. Flat-Footed. Their increase by the endgame is marginal at best, and until then they will still be losing out because of the Maximum Dexterity Bonus mechanic.
Ranged Attack Rolls might help make hits, but you're still going to be using Strength to deal your damage. Tack on DR on a given creature, and you're looking at getting screwed over. Being MAD in regards to dealing damage versus successful hits is one the reasons why people don't like going TWF or bothering to use the Weapon Finesse feat by itself. It's also the sole reason why Rogues suck when Dexterity-based until Level 3, mostly the same as other classes.
Reflex Saves are perhaps the only upside to going Dexterity-based, as the benefits to Dexterity aren't limited by some Maximum Dexterity Bonus mechanic. But the only thing that really targets Reflex Saves are Blasting effects. Fireballs, Lightning Bolts, Chain Lightning, et. al. So can it reduce damage? Perhaps. Doubly true with Evasion. But is it worth losing your effective level progression, damage dealt, carrying capacity, and the actuality that your build is supposed to be better? Probably not.
Most cases of Stealth are rarely useful. Hats of Disguise or simply busting down the door and strongarming whatever you have to sneak past are usually better tactics to begin with, especially when you know you have a fighting chance against whatever is coming at you. If you need to get out of dodge fast, I can certainly tell you that trying to sneak past it will actually only slow you down unless you super-specialize for it.
Even finding combat uses for Dexterity with Skills, such as Acrobatics or Escape Artist, are also losing battles, given the scale for Skills V.S. Creature CMD.
Did I also mention that for a lot of Combat Maneuvers, such as Dirty Tricks, you'll have to spend yet another feat to make it viable with Dexterity builds? And that you'd be an effective 3 feats behind the Strength build, meaning he's getting access to other goodies that will probably off-set whatever menial "benefits" you gained from going a Dexterity route?
I can do this all day. You cite me an apparent Dexterity advantage, and I can tell you how it's a bunch of hooey. But make it a different thread, or PM me if you wish.
I'll go ahead and bow out of this topic now, as I've said my fair share and don't really have much else to contribute.
**EDIT** Made the "derail" an optional thing to view.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You forgot to mention initiative.
So yes, if we don't mention initiative, don't care for stealth or acrobatics (which is not just to tumble around huge CMD bonuses. A simple Grease Spell can take down a DEX 10 full plate user), we diminish the damage reducción effect of REF vs blasting, and we fail to recognice the existence of spells like grease, Web, Resiluent Sphere or Aquous Orb that are REF or Suck, and we don't consider touch attacks like Enervation a importante thing, then DEX is worse than STR because it does less damage.
However, for those who think initiative matters, REF sabe matters, touch AC matter, and acrobatics and stealth matter, DEX has plenty of usefulness.
I am sure there will be an archetype.
One that replaced the dex option for an option like the belt of mighty hurling would be interesting. I'd love to see a 'hulk smash' throwing archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't the Slayer fill the "enforcer rogue" role better than the rogue ever did?
Design Manager
|
Or they could have rolled Finesse Training into the Finesse Rogue talent and given the rogue an extra rogue talent at level 1. It wouldn't have a negative impact to current builds that rely on Finesse Training, but it would mean that a hypothetical muscly rogue wouldn't have dead class features.
I think a full trio of Rogue Training options or combat style focused Rogue Talents would have been a better way to go than Finesse Training. Let the rogue choose whether they want to go thug, "assassin", or sniper/thrown specialist, similar to the way a Ranger chooses his combat style. As is, the UnC Rogue feels like they basically fixed one specific Rogue build without doing much to address the others.
|
Design Manager
|
Also, since I have a standing rule about not complaining about anything I'm not willing to try fixing or offering alternatives for, here's some archetype options for the Unchained Rogue that play with non Weapon Finesse based fighting styles.
There already is a 3PP archetype for the Str-focused unchained rogue: the bruiser in Unchained Cunning. In place of the finesse training tree, a bruiser gets a bonus to Fort saves at 1st level and picks from a list of bonus combat feats at 3rd, 11th, and 19th levels.
The writer, Alexander Augunas, is already a Paizo freelancer, so maybe we'll see an official Paizo-approved Str-focused archetype in a future product?
FYI, the bruiser archetype is now live on d20pfsrd.com.
I can't think of a single class that says "if you don't like that because it doesn't work with your build feel free to take an extra power"
Maybe not, but if you look closer you'll find that most major class features that are designed in a way that makes them useful no matter what (reasonable) option you choose to go with.
The D&D 3.0 Ranger simply got TWF as a bonus feat at level 2. A lot of people wanted to play the woodsman who's good with a bow, so when D&D updated to 3.5 the ranger could choose between getting archery-based bonus feats and TWF-based bonus feats. Recognizing that there are rangers that would pick other weapons or approaches to combat than longbows and TWF, Paizo's Ranger can choose between about 20 different combat styles covering everything from natural weapons to firearms.
The fighter gets to pick his own weapon groups.
The monk gets to choose from a host of different bonus feats - though admittedly this list could be longer.
The cleric gets to pick from an extensive list of options based on his deity.
The druid gets to pick from a very long list of animal companions.
The barbarian initially only got one type of bonus from Rage, but the Urban Barbarian makes dex-raging a thing and the unchained barbarian gets mostly build-neutral bonuses to make either approach to combat work.
Now imagine a game where all fighters get heavy blade training at level 5, all monks get Improved Grapple at level 2, clerics always start with the healing domain, and all druids have wolf animal companions. See the issue?
Generally speaking, having more (balanced) options to choose from is good and unnecessary pigeonholing is bad. Providing the unchained rogue with an archetype that lets strength-rogues pick something in place of Finesse training is not a bad idea.
Generally speaking, having more (balanced) options to choose from is good and unnecessary pigeonholing is bad. Providing the unchained rogue with an archetype that lets strength-rogues pick something in place of Finesse training is not a bad idea.
I agree that it isn't a bad idea. They didn't do that in this case and there was no playtest so that the community could have suggested it.
Those who want a strength based rogue are most likely much better off going Slayer.
|
To the OP: I've had it with base classes that offer 200 different paths. I'm glad the unchained rogue is a dex king as rogues have always been that. If you're worried about no longer having STR rogues take slayer or something else. As others mentioned you can certainly expects variants through archetype in the future, but I'm glad the base class is fairly straightforward and that I don't have to have the book at hand before wading into an oracle-style exploration each time I want to chat about the rogue.
I've basically written off oracles as I wanna play a game and enjoy friends company and not spend hours figuring out paths of advancement with millions of variables down the road.
Rogues allow uniqueness via rogue talents. Great. If I pick something that sucks for the rogue I can make amends next time I pick a rogue talent. Oracles allow you to choose an ice cream flavor first, then some uniqueness based on flavor you chose. If you picked chocolate, you must now keep scooping from that chocolate ice cream bin (and it gets lower and lower as you scoop.. err. Level up. ..) You can't have double scoop of different flavors! (Same way the vigilante playtest went... which I hate)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP: I've had it with base classes that offer 200 different paths. I'm glad the unchained rogue is a dex king as rogues have always been that. If you're worried about no longer having STR rogues take slayer or something else. As others mentioned you can certainly expects variants through archetype in the future, but I'm glad the base class is fairly straightforward and that I don't have to have the book at hand before wading into an oracle-style exploration each time I want to chat about the rogue.
I've basically written off oracles as I wanna play a game and enjoy friends company and not spend hours figuring out paths of advancement with millions of variables down the road.
Rogues allow uniqueness via rogue talents. Great. If I pick something that sucks for the rogue I can make amends next time I pick a rogue talent. Oracles allow you to choose an ice cream flavor first, then some uniqueness based on flavor you chose. If you picked chocolate, you must now keep scooping from that chocolate ice cream bin (and it gets lower and lower as you scoop.. err. Level up. ..) You can't have double scoop of different flavors! (Same way the vigilante playtest went... which I hate)
How many times do I have to say I'm a dex junkie who loves the dex to damage thing unchained rogues got going on? Seriously did you read any post of mine? I've only heard and agreed with complaints about this. I FREAKING LOVE IT THOUGH. Is that clear. I acknowledge that it would've been a good idea, doesn't mean i don't love my now effective dex junkie rogue. Cuz I do! Others don't though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't the Slayer fill the "enforcer rogue" role better than the rogue ever did?
It does except for those that have to have rogue written on their character sheet. With all the options for a rogue like character why are people complaining about a class feature not being useful for their concept when another class fits the concept better.
Your character class is a game mechanic not a profession. Find the class and archetype that best fits your character and use that. Then call your character whatever you like.
Now I really want to see someone create a wizard, sorcerer, and/or alchemist themed and named "Bob the builder".Doesn't the Slayer fill the "enforcer rogue" role better than the rogue ever did?It does except for those that have to have rogue written on their character sheet. With all the options for a rogue like character why are people complaining about a class feature not being useful for their concept when another class fits the concept better.
Your character class is a game mechanic not a profession. Find the class and archetype that best fits your character and use that. Then call your character whatever you like.
Conjuration wizard. All his summoning spells involve a bunch of sentient construction equipment "building" the creatures that he summons.
If the uRouge gets a strength option, the Slayer could us an option like Finesse Training
I always felt the rogue should have been a full BAB class that gets sneak attack instead of the bonus feats and static bonuses like other martial classes get. And instead of doing that, Paizo gave them a powerful Dex-to-damage ability. I don't think that was a bad approach, but it unfortunately shoehorns you into playing a specific build.
Though, the class is more fun in my campaign, where katanas are considered finesse weapons.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the uRouge gets a strength option, the Slayer could us an option like Finesse Training
This line of thought is hopeless. They create the Unchained Rogue to get the rogue class out of the toilet, and you suggest we stuff it right back in it. I completely disagree. Let the slayer stay like it is. It's already much more powerful than the core rogue.